[Hunt03] Hunt03 / NPL / KappaSig!

["Anand Dilip Sarwate" <asarwate eecs berkeley edu>]

Cheers all,

A quick google search turned up the source of all the
consternation, and I subscribed myself because (I think)
I'm the only NPL member on KappaSig (and no, Eric, you
do not have yourself to thank for that), and it seems
that Mark forwarding emails is a bit silly.  This email
is really freaking long, and is pretty much entirely my
opinions.

I am not going to start any more rumors or whatnot, but
it certainly has been lively, just from a glance though
the archives.  I'm going to push for some clarifications
from those who are more In Charge (tm).  I'm not in the
ruling Cabal anymore, given my geographic separation, but
let's be very clear on one thing:  if it's not on the
website, it's just a rumor.  The thoughts below are my
personal opinions, not policy.

The website says "at least 10-15 people" meaning that we
think if you have fewer than 10 people, you will have less
fun, solve fewer puzzles, etc.  At the moment I'm poking
ACME and Setec for statistics on teams that participated,
sizes, how many puzzles they solved, etc.  Those of you
on organizing teams in the past, send that information
along, we could use it.

The website also says it's good to have plenty of MIT student
participation.  All of the reasons that people have brought
up regarding logistics from the past (athena accounts, etc)
are important, but as I wrote to Lance last night, there
are two opposing philosophies:

   "The Hunt is an IAP Activity at MIT geared
    towards the MIT community."

   "The Hunt is an annual puzzle competition that
    happens to be held at MIT and therefore has some
    local color."

The members of KappaSig, by and large, are of the former
opinion, which is one of the reasons we registered as an
IAP Activity and have been trying to get some press on the
Hunt (there was an issue on it in Technology Review).
Apart from the money and fame, that is.

Among the student body of hunters, there is a fair amount of
(only slightly unfounded) antipathy towards the NPL.  The
(extreme) feeling is that the NPL views the Mystery Hunt as a
sort of mini-con where the NPL is out to show its superior
puzzling skills.  Someone mentioned this earlier.  And when
they do win, the subsequent hunt lacks that MIT flavor that
student hunters like.  Perhaps the puzzles are more like con
handouts -- having never been to a con, I cannot say.  But
I doubt the "MIT Professor Personal Ads" puzzle from the last
stages of the Matrix would have appeared in the Hunt of Horror.
And let me tell you, after 60 hours, the comic relief was
needed.

So what to do about this view?  Well, one option is to say
"you students are smoking crack, we're not the Borg," and
proceed as always, without trying to get current MIT students
(and staff/faculty) to join you.  Or maybe you should try
to get more MIT students to join your team -- one of the
suggestions on npl-folk was that new members are likely to
stay members if they get to do non-Enigma puzzle solving.
Or perhaps the view is entirely accurate, and you don't see
the MIT Mystery Hunt being much about MIT, and that they just
provide the venue, internet drops, and beer (ok, maybe not).
In that case, I would never want to be on your team,  but if
others do, I suppose that's between them and their conscience.

So this brings us back to team size.  Another complaint about
"outside teams" is that 40 people show up from off-campus, set
up in a classroom, win, and then leave to write it for next
year.  We had 90-some people and I believe it was mostly sheer
endurance that got us through to the end.  There are two reasons
for wanting to encourage smaller teams: the really small teams
having fun, and improving the competition.

All of the people who just sign up for the hunt because it looks
like fun in the Guide should have fun.  Even if they are 5 people
in a suite with nothing better to do.  They should get to call
in some solutions, come to whatever hunt-wide party thing if
there is one, and have some funny stories.  And maybe they will
seek out a more competitive team the next year.

But if you want to be competitive, you need to have 10-15 people,
so that people stay awake, there doesn't get to be a huge backlog
of puzzles, etc.  It should not be that "largest team always wins,"
but if you have a team of 90 and a team of 30, and 50 unsolved
puzzles, the advantage is pretty clear.  Also, it's somewhat
less satisfying to win if it was just from sheer force of numbers.
Finally, as someone pointed out, each person only gets to see
a small amount of the total hunt.

There are other problems.  I think the last few hunts turned
into a Clash of the Titans, replete with bad special effects.
I just wanted to put some more context into the discussion.
If there are specific questions people have, I would like to
hear them -- I sent Kiran's comments on to the appropriate people.

                        Anand